Dark energy, mystery no more!

Today, we know that the dark mass and the dark energy are the essential parts of gravity. Newton did not know them. But, his equation is still good for dark mass as it is a mass anyway. It is the same for the General Relativity which deals only about mass and mass-energy. Is dark energy mass-energy? If it is not, GR is of course incomplete. Without knowing exactly what the dark energy is and is about, the gravity cannot be understood. Without knowing what the gravity is, any talking about *Super Unified Theory* is simply *nonsense*.


For the mainstream physics, the dark energy was discovered only 15 years ago. It is still a mystery for the mainstream physics. The dark energy survey has now begin last week in Chile.


While the dark mass and the dark energy are still mysteries in the mainstream physics, it can actually be discussed. I often use an Apple boy/G-grandmother dialog to discuss a very complex problem, as it can address an issue from many different angles. But, it will definitely get to lengthy. Under this comment length constrain, I can only show a backbone framework here without any detailed elaboration. 


Dark energy issue can be discussed by asking a few *correct* questions.

  1. The dark energy survey is now investigating the galaxies and supernovae up to 8 billion light years always, as it is the current event horizon for us. Of course, we know that there are something beyond that horizon, as the universe is now about 16 billion years old. Thus, the first question is, “Where is the edge (boundary) of this universe?”

Answer: *Here*, (why? Omitted). The coffee cup on your desk is the *edge* of this universe.

  1. As far as we know today, the dark energy is the cause for the cosmic expansion acceleration. The second question will be, “What is the outside of the edge for this universe expanding into?”

Answer: *Next*, (why? Omitted). The universe does not expand into the *outside* but into the *Next*. That is, your coffee cup (not moving in your eyes) was moved from *Here (now)* to *Next (Here)*. And, this expansion can be written as,

{[Here (now), Now], [Here (next), Next]} = {Delta S, Delta T} = (Delta S  x  Delta T)


  1. What is the *cause* to cause this movement?

Answer: * ħ (Planck constant)”, (why, omitted).

Thus,  ħ = {delta S, delta T} = (delta S x delta T), this is a *cause – effect* equation and the dimensions need not match, as they will be adjusted later on.

So,  ħ/(delta S x delta T) = I


  1. What is *I*? *I* is 1. But there are many *1*s. The 1 cent is dramatically different from the 1 trillion dollars. *1* can carry dimensions. There is a very special *1* = kF. What is k or F? It does not matter at this point. Thus,

      ħ/(delta S x delta T) = kF   or    F = K ħ/(delta S x delta T)

                     By working out the dimensions, the F turns out to be a *force*, and the above is the *Super Unified force equation*.


Originally, this *Super Unified force equation* was derived from a different pathway, from the fiber structure of the space-time-sheet. Of course, it will be too lengthy for here. Thus, I have used a conceptual pathway here. There are a few very clear concepts here.

  1. The edge of the universe is *Here*.
  2. The outside of that edge is *Next*.
  3. The force moves your coffee cup from *here (now)* to *Next (here)* is the super unified force which is the emergent of the dark energy.


Now, it is very clear that the dark energy consists of three parts [Space, Time and Mass (coffee cup)], and they three form an *iceberg model* which gives the precise *prediction* about the Planck data (dark energy = 69.2;  dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82). The detailed calculation for *predicting* the Planck data is available at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html . The following is an abridged calculation.


In my previous comment, I have given two links for the dark matter and the dark energy mystery issues. It will take one some efforts to go to those links. Yet, as great as these two mysteries are, they can be easily resolved with half page calculations, as we do have Planck data (dark energy = 69.2;  dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82) and the AMS02 data now. Since these are simple numbers, the *predictions* of a model for these numbers are very straightforward, no debate can come about.


With the Planck data (dark energy = 69.2;  dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82) and the AMS02 data, the dark matter and the dark energy mysteries are no more. Again, the “Standard Model proper” cannot make any linkage to this issue. Its baby (SUSY) is making some wild guess without the ability to match with this Planck data. Yet, the entire Planck data can be *predicted*  with a correct particle theory which consists of two sub-models (the pimple model and an iceberg model).


For dark matter, with the Pimple model (that is, every particles carry the same mass-charge, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/  ), there are 48 matter particles (matter + anti-matter) while only 7 of them [the first generation matter (not anti-matter)] gives out lights (excluding e-neutrino). Thus, the dark mass/visible mass ratio = [41 (100 – w)% / 7] . The *w* is the percentage of the dark matter which does give out lights. According to the AMS02 data, it is between 8 to 10%. By choosing w = 9, the d/v ratio = 5.33 (while the Planck data shows d/v ratio = 25.8/4.82 = 5.3526). Details, (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/08/dark-matter-mystery-no-more-part-2.html  ).  


For dark energy, it uses an iceberg model (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html ). That is, the Time, Space and Mass (dark + visible) form an iceberg system, while the mass is the iceberg. And, they three take the *equal* share. So, the dark mass = [(33.3 – 4.82) x (100 -9)%] =  25.91 (while the Planck data is 25.8), with d/v ratio = 5.37.  The 9% here is the melting ratio from the dark matter. Thus, the dark energy = 66.66 + [(33.3 – 4.82) x  9%] = 66.66 + 2.56 = 69.22 (while the Planck data is 69.2).


One interesting thing here, the dark/visible ratio was calculated with two different pathways. Yet, the average [(5.33 + 5.375)/2] = 5.3527, exactly the same as the Planck data.


With these calculations, the Nature is much simpler than we can ever imagine. Yet, numbers are numbers, and there is no debate-point for these calculations.


The above is also available at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/09/16/dark-energy-detectives/#comment-7295910552604271829 


For dark mass,  also see http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/16/a-quantum-gravity-cosmology-conference/#comment-86056


For dark energy, see http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/19/am-i-misleading-you-about-string-theory/#comment-87311 



M-/F-string theories, failed theories

Apple Boy: Hi, G-grandmother. Professor Matt Strassler had a new post on string-theory. It truly gives a perfectly detailed description about the string theory. But, most importantly, he laid out the issue of SUSY by categorizing it into three groups.

  1.  Natural supersymmetry (related to the Standard Model unnatural problem) — testable at LHC.
  2. Supersymmetry proper (not related to Standard Model or anything else) — could exist at very high energy places, far, far, far out of reach of the LHC.
  3. Supersymmetry of string theory — that doesn’t mean that it shows up in a simple way: it is not necessarily the case that there will be a recognizable superpartner particle for every particle, as traditional supersymmetry predicts.

I have two questions for you.

  1. Is there any supersymmetry in Nature-master’s file box?
  2. How can people on Earth rule out the case 2 and 3 if they are wrong? Per Matt’s saying, we have no way to rule them out if they are simply wrong.


G-grandmother: This morning, I did peek into Nature-master’s file box. I did see a *supersymmetry* folder, but I cannot find anything about SUSY (with s-particle) or anything about the *supersymmetry of M-string*.  But, the answer for your second question can also be the answer for the first one. There is no need to rule them out. As soon as the correct answer is showed to them, they will simply *trash* the others, not wasting one more second on them regardless of whether they are right or wrong. They call it the Occam’s razor, you know.


Apple Boy: So, all is hinged on the right answer. But, again two questions.

  1. Does anyone (besides the Nature-master himself) know about the right answer?
  2. How can he convince others about his answer being the right one?


G-grandmother: Good questions. But, it is not real that big deal. The first step is pointing out the wrong answers, the weeding out, you know. Using string theory as an example, it should have two missions.

  1. Making contacts with the knowing physics, that is, reproducing the known SM particles, especially the 48 matter particles.
  2. Understanding the old mystery. Gravity was kind of mystery. By *fully* understanding the gravity, it will open up the gate for the *Super unification*.

If string theory does not have the two missions above, it will be no value of any kind as a physics theory. Yet, we all know that it failed on both missions. As we discussed before, the *dark energy* plays 2/3 parts in gravity.  Yet, before the discovery in 1998 that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, string theory had no slightest clue about it. All the arguments about whether the string theory has any great *predictions* or not is not very important, as it is already a *failed* theory in terms of the two missions above.


 Apple Boy: So, all is hinged on the dark energy now. A five year plan for the Dark Energy Survey was lunched last week.   It is an international collaboration using the Blanco telescope in Chile to study the effects of dark energy on the evolution of the universe through a variety of probes — supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak gravitational lensing, and counts of galaxy clusters. But, G-grandmother, you have hinted repeatedly that the dark energy is not a mystery but is a piece of cake. Can you elaborate on that a bit more?


G-grandmother: The dark energy itself is not a mystery, but the story around it was a bit entangled. You know, Einstein came upstairs not too long ago. I put up a welcome-wagon party just for him. We are now good neighbors and friends.  We often had good party together. But, one time, I talked to him about the dark energy after I learned it from your brother, and he began to weep. What is the matter, Mr. E, I said. Remorse, remorse, he replied. Oh, Mr. E, Nature-master gave everyone a timer when we went to Earth. When the time up, we have to come back, dropping all the unfinished work behind.  You have done so much for the mankind with your SR (special relativity) and GR (general relativity). It is truly not a bit problem for your not knowing the dark energy. But, he bawled even harder and said, “Misled, misled”. Misled of what? I asked. We all know that GR is not complete but still very thankful. Yet, he kept weeping. Is anything about SR, I asked. He nodded. Is an upcoming experiment going to invalidate the SR somewhat? No, he murmured. Then, what is the problem? I asked. “Misled, misled” he murmured. Misled of what? I asked again. He turned in and did not want to talk about anymore.


 Apple Boy: Wow, a truly weird story, entangled indeed. But, we can get three points from this story.

1.        Einstein is confident about the SR to stand all experimental tests.

2.        Einstein is remorseful for SR having some sort of misleading karma.

3.        The misleading of SR is related to the dark energy.

Am I right? G-grandmother. Can you talk about the dark energy now?


G-grandmother: Your analysis is the only one that I can came up with too. Now, after thinking about Mr. E’s weeping, I am exhausted today.



The followings are comments that I made at Matt’s blog post “Am I misleading you about string theory?”


Comments 1: Matt: You are always fair and clear on your point. No, I was not misled. The *mislead* is a very important issue which has never been discussed before, and it has the dire consequence for the advancement in physics, especially for this *final* step. It was so accidental that I did discuss the *misled* issue in my comments at your last post. There are two types of mislead.

1.        Mislead by wrong information — this has no long time effect.

2.        Mislead by *right* information — this could be very, very harmful with dire consequence, as the bright *right-lights* can blind the view to the next gate.


In your case, you were not misleading, no misleading of the either types. The whole thing was just a bit too emotional. Woit’s reason of against string theory was a bit too shallow. But, for the public in large, they have given the string (M- or F-) theory 40 years to success, but it has failed to make any contact to Standard Model, the only criterion understood by the lay public. This *single* point is enough to convince the public that M- or F- theory is nonsense although the string theorists still form a very powerful institution. This is why Woit has his market.


 Woit put a *bet* on “M- or F-string theory is nonsense in terms of physics” and is confident that he is going to win that bet for the reason that those are now obviously failed theories. The fact is that he is obviously winning the bet thus far, and the public at large are betting the same thing with him.


Yet, the string theorists are still forming a very powerful institution, no one dare to shake it. This makes Woit a great hero in the public eyes.


By reading Matt’s original post, he was very fair-handed. By using the hammer analogy, he hinted that the string theory (perhaps, the M-theory types) might not be a viable physics theory but is still good tool for doing many other works, as good as a hammer.


Then, the debate on the *Predictive-ness* issue made him (Matt) as a string theory strong supporter. This is not what I got from reading his original post.


For the string theory debate (the M-theory types and the likes), my view is very simple. Any theory beyond Standard Model must make contacts to known physics. The M- or F-string theory has failed on this simple criterion. This failure goes way beyond the *semi-decidable*, the answer is at just beyond the next corner. No, the predictions (even zillions) beyond the next corner will not help one bit on their failure of not being able to make contacts to the known physics.


With the hammer analogy, I must agree with Matt here.



Comments 2: In my previous comments, I have said that I was not misled by Professor Matt Strassler. As his post is very fair and balanced, I do not think that it can mislead anyone although there are a few commenters saying otherwise. The whole issue is about the M- /F-string theories and SUSY (with s-particles) have misled the entire mainstream physics for the past 40 years. As it should be, the central debating point is about *predictive-ness*. But, it again got into the nitty-gritty, becoming meaningless. I am quite sure that many laymen can agree with me on one point about this predictive-ness issue.


a.         Any prediction in or about the Alice Wonderland is nonsense. Any theory beyond the Standard Model must *predict* the known physics (that is, making contact to it). In this case, it must reproduce the particle zoo of the Standard Model. Both M-/F-string theories failed on this simple criterion after 40 years of trying. That is, they are trashes in terms of *physics* regardless of whether they are made of pure gold or not.


Woit’s arguments against M-/F-string theories, SUSY (with s-particles) and multiverse are quite weak as he does not have the *correct* answers in his hand to replace those *wrongs*. But, his courage of fighting against a super powerful institution (formed by many big names of M-/F-string theorists and SUSY devotees) single handed made him a great hero in the physics history. I personally do not like his abrasive personality but still must give him my salute for his courage and the great deed done to physics.


This debate can only be resolved by having the *correct* answers for the mysteries of the universe. As Professor Matt Strassler said, “You need to unify at least hypercharge and weak isospin with gravity if you want to play that game.” Yet, without knowing what the gravity is, any next step becomes meaningless. Today, we are kind of knowing that gravity consists of three parts (visible mass, dark mass and dark energy).  Fortunately, we now have the Planck data (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; visible matter = 4.82). Thus, any theory which *predicts* those simple numbers will be a viable theory for these mysteries. In my view that the dark energy issue can be easily resolved by answering two conceptual questions.

1.        Where is the edge (boundary) of this universe?

2.        What is the outside of that edge (boundary)?


Knowing the answers of these two conceptual questions, they can then be translated into equations. Then, this debate will reach a conclusion.


The above is also available at  http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/17/did-the-lhc-just-rule-out-string-theory/#comment-86318 


Barked up the wrong trees (M-theory and SUSY)

A post (from Professor Matt Strassler ‘s blog) covers almost the entire frontier of physics; the quantum gravity, the supergravity, the black holes (including the firewall problem) and cosmic inflation. But, most importantly, it is about the  following comments, “Susskind stated clearly his view that string theory, as currently understood, does not appear to provide a complete picture of how quantum gravity works. … It’s remarkable to hear Susskind, who helped invent string theory over 40 years ago, say this so forcefully.” The Apple Boy was truly moved by this comment and had a discussion with his G-grandmother.


Apple Boy: The M-theory and SUSY were the only two huge trees in the physics forest for the past 50 years. Now, someone (including the original tree planter) finally admit that they have barked up the wrong trees. Especially when this is reported by a great physicist Matt Strassler, it will be truly a genuine news. Hi, G-grandmother, what do you think about this quantum gravity and black hole issues?


G-grandmother: Oh, they are deeply entangled with the quantum principle, you know. The only way to resolve these issues must first get the bottom of the quantum principle, as I said last time that it is *the* issue.  Which one of the two cases below is the correct answer?

1. Quantum principle (fundamental) causes the nonzero vacuum energy (emergent).

2. Nonzero vacuum energy (fundamental) causes the quantum principle (emergent).


Apple Boy: I can obviously see some differences between the two cases. But, what is the big deal?


G-grandmother: Huge, huge. There are huge differences in three tiers.

First, in case 1, the size of vacuum energy is controlled by the quantum fluctuations, that is, it can be any size depending upon the moods of the quantum daddy. On the other hand, in case 2, the vacuum energy is set by the fiber-structure of the space-time field, and the quantum fluctuations are the squires of the vacuum energy master.


Apple Boy: What is the fiber-structure of the space-time field? I have never heard about this before.


G-grandmother: Oh, this is the second tier huge difference. When we see quantum principle as the fundamental, we block the true fundamental (the space-time field) from our view.  It is the *fiber* of the space-time field gives rise to quantum principle.


Apple Boy: Well, it is great. But, so what? By following your saying, the quantum principle is correct, and it is a great tool for solving physics problems. Do we need to know the fiber of the space-time filed? As far as I know that no one on this Earth knows about it? That is, even if *you* tell us the answer, no one will believe you. How can you convince anyone that your fiber story is correct if you do know the answer?


G-grandmother:  Wow, boy, you really got me. I have never thought about the issue of convincing others. Well, you have been driving for many hours. How far away from home now? I got to take a break for thinking about that challenge.


Apple boy: Only 14.15 miles from our driveway now, this moment. Just relax, no big deal.


 G-grandmother:  Wow, how can you get the distance so accurately?


Apple boy: GPS. With GPS you know. About 16 satellites orbiting the Earth, and they together can calculate the location of every point on Earth and can give out the precise distance between any points on Earth.


G-grandmother:  Oh, I know, I know now. When I came down from upstairs, I did see some metal balls flying around in space, peeking on some *landmarks*.  That is, the landmarks. As long as they know their own positions relating to those landmarks, they can calculate the location of every point on Earth. But, it is plagiarism, the violation of the copyrights, you know. It was the precise way that the *Nature-master* used for constructing the fiber-structure of the space-time field. 


Apple boy: Very interesting. There is a landmark for the space-time field. How many landmarks the Nature-master needs for his work? GPS uses many landmarks, you know.


G-grandmother:  One, just one. Nature-master has three crowns; Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscience. So, he needs just one which is eternally accurate, not shakable by any external forces (good or evil).


Apple boy: Wow, what is it? What is its name? Where is it located?


G-grandmother:  Name? Oh, no name. Nature-master did not give it a name. But, your brother told me a while back, it is called Alpha [α (electron fine structure constant)], a pure number which cannot be changed by any external force. With that eternal landmark, the Nature-master made three *rulers*; ħ (Planck constant),   c (light speed) and electric charge. With the reference point anchored (the landmark), he used these three rulers to map out the space-time field. By the way, being very lazy, the Nature-master made two auxiliary landmarks; the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles.


Apple boy: Well, it is a truly interesting story. But, how can you or the Nature-master convince anyone that it is the correct story.


G-grandmother:  Backward, go backward. Only with the correct fiber structure, one can *calculate* (derive) those landmarks. So, anyone who can derive Alpha is having the correct knowledge of the fiber of the space-time field.


Apple boy:  I just checked the Wikipedia now, and it says that no one is able to calculate the Alpha. That is,  we got back to the ground zero after all. There is no hope of getting any answer for those great issues; the quantum gravity, black holes.


G-grandmother:  Oh, no, no. Your brother showed me an equation about how to calculate the Alpha a while back (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html ). I hate math, you know. So, I asked an 8th grader to check that equation out. The number comes out exactly correct. As he knows no physics at all, he won’t even know how to mess up the calculation. So, I am quite confident about that equation. By the way, what is Wikipedia? You seemingly take it as Gospels.  Why does it not list that equation?


Apple boy: You are really outdated. Now is 21st century, you know. A correct equation is often not politic correct. Not correct in physics or in calculation is no big deal. Not correct politically is a major sin. My brother’s equation must be not correct politically. But, I think that there is another way to resolve those issues. Now, the dark mass and dark energy are two greatest mysteries in physics. When they two are resolved, all other issues will be resolved too. Don’t you think? By the way, what is the third tier difference?


G-grandmother:  Boy, you are definitely correct. But, they are not mysteries but two pieces great *cakes*. About the third tier difference, embarrassing, very embarrassing…


The next day,

Apple Boy: Hi, G-grandmother, your landmark and the fiber of space-time ideas are not appreciated by a commenter duffieldjohn, he says, “Thus α depends upon the energy at which it is measured, increasing with increasing energy, and is considered an effective or running coupling constant.” Professor Matt Strassler also says that “You need to unify at least hypercharge and weak isospin with gravity if you want to play that game.” What do you say?


G-grandmother:  duffieldjohn’s saying is not wrong. When someone took pictures of me, those pictures are all different. I don’t even recognize that some of them are truly me. Many of them confused about me (the true me) from those pictures from those paparazzi. It must be a similar situation for that landmark α (Alpha).  Yesterday, I talked about only two points.

  1. The fiber of space-time field is the fundamental while the quantum principle is the emergent.
  2. The fiber-structure of the space-time field was laid out with a landmark as the key reference.

If they agree with these two points, the other nitty-gritty does not concern me. If the Nature-master used a different landmark, it will be just fine with me. Matt’s comment really hits the point. But, it is so big an issue and cannot be discussed with a few comments, you know. We need to do some preparations for that huge, huge feast. Furthermore, I have heard that gravity was described in many different ways; by Newton, Einstein, quantum gravity, supergravity, etc.. How can gravity be unified with anything else if it itself is a pile of marbles. Thus, first, we must know exactly what gravity is.  The dark mass and dark energy play a big part in gravity. So, this unification issue can be started from these two issues. Most importantly, these two issues are more clearly defined by the Planck’s data, that is, there are *numbers* to be checked with, and we won’t go into the tongue in cheek arguing.


Apple Boy:  In the article “Storm in Ice Cube (Résonaances)”, it says that a PeV dark matter candidate was discovered. I think that the dark matter issue will be resolved very soon.


G-grandmother:  Oh, that will be truly nice.  Pev x N (numbers of it in the universe)/visible matter = 5.3526, then they got it. Maybe their model is a bit more complicated than that, but this is the basic idea. The dark matter issue is very simple, you know, as the ratio is known from the Planck’s data to be 5.3526, a very simple number to check with. But, I have peeked into the Nature-master’s file box of the dark matter, I did not see any Pev type dark matter in there. Is any known physics model predicting a Pev dark matter? Or someone has to come up one in a hurry?


Apple Boy: It sounds simple enough with the ratio known. That the one who can whip up that number in some kind of physics equation must be the winner of this puzzle solving game. But, even that dark matter puzzle is solved, I am still confused about this mass-charge issue. What the heck is the mass-charge anyway? For electric charge, it is unique, only one charge regardless of who is carrying it. Why are here so many mass-charges?


G-grandmother:  What? I never know that. I was told by the Nature-master zillion years ago that there is one and only one mass-charge. Maybe something new has evolved in this universe since my last visit. Can you tell me how many different mass-charges there are?


Apple Boy:  Oh, G-g-mother, you are really outdated. The up-quark is many times heavier than electron, not to say about the e-neutrino. If we use the electron mass as the mass-charge unit, it won’t work for the neutrinos. We just very recently discovered that neutrinos also carry mass-charge, you know.


G-grandmother:  Thanks heaven, boy. I thought that you was talking about something huge and difficult. You just got it wrong. Those 48 matter particles all carry different masses, but they are not different mass-charges. Those 48 are 48 pimples on the mass-charge. Those pimples weight differently, but the mass-charge which they sit on is all the same. There is only one mass-charge in this universe.


Apple Boy:   Wow, never heard about this before. How can you convince anyone on Earth about your pimple story?


G-grandmother:  The number, the dark mass/visible mass ratio number (= 5.3526), from the Planck data. The Nature master divided his universe into two dominions; the ocean of energy and the continent of mass.  Then, this continent of mass was given to his 48 kids (you call them 48 matter particles) *evenly*, exactly measured by the mass-charge, you know. Yet, only the youngest generation who takes up the stage (not back stage which houses their anti-cousins) is horsing around and making a lot of sparks. The two older generations are stay put inside without giving out any lights. By the way, although the neutrino is also out playing, but it does not giving out lights neither, being too shy, you know. So, the dark/visible ratio = [41 x (100 – w) % /7].


Apple Boy: What is the *w* in the equation?


G-grandmother:  Statistics, the out-of-bound statistics. Many balls went out of bound and disturbed those old folks who do give out lights when disturbed. According to the AMS02 data, the statistics is about 8 to 10%. If we choose w = 9, then the dark/visible ratio = 5.33, and it fits the Planck data perfectly.


Apple Boy:  How about the mass of W, Z bosons and gluons?


G-grandmother:   Oh, no. The land right in the dominion is only giving to the legitimate kids (the matter particles) of Nature master. Those bosons and gluons are workers, already counted in their landlord’s account, as they themselves have no mass-land rights. The different mass for the different landlord is as different name tags for his mass-territory, a pimple on the mass-charge, so to speak.


Apple Boy:  Well, even if this is correct, it is only 1/3 of gravity story. How about the dark energy issue? Is it an important part of the gravity? As far as I know, it is a true mystery now.


G-grandmother:   Definitely, dark energy, 2/3 of story. Mystery? Kind of. But, no. But, not today.


The above is also available at http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/16/a-quantum-gravity-cosmology-conference/#comment-85988


Can Nature be unnatural?

The old grandmother of 15th century comes back to see her grand … grandson, the Apple boy. The following is the conversation about this unnaturalness issue.


Apple boy: G-grandmother, I just read a great article about the unnaturalness of Nature. Every argument in it makes sense. But put all together, it just doesn’t make sense to me. How can Nature be unnatural? You have sat right beside of Nature for the past 500 years. Can you help me on this?


G-grandmother: Oh, the only thing unnatural to me during my last visit in the 17th century was seeing a man who walked on a rope 100 feet above the ground.


Apple boy: It is unnatural to an average person in their ability to perform such a stunt. But, it is simply allowed by the laws of Nature.


G-grandmother: Well, I really see some unnatural things in this visit. When I came down from upstairs, I saw many people in a bird-like metal box flying in the sky. Then, I saw many people talking from inside of a hand-held plate.


Apple boy: Indeed, they are some kinds of unnatural as they were invented by humans. We call them artificial inventions. Yet, they are still parts of Nature as only laws of nature allow their existences.


G-grandmother: Last night, I saw a video about Ptolemy model of the universe, and all stars are dancing in different patterns. How can a star dance like a dancer? It is truly unnatural.


Apple boy: That model put the *center* of the universe at Earth, and it is an unnatural way of doing it. Indeed, that model is unnatural which means *wrong* today.


G-grandmother: Hi, boy, you seemingly know all answers. Then, what is your question?


Apple boy: Matt showed a vase/table analogy and said that our universe sits at the unnatural situation (the rightmost picture).


G-grandmother: Why is it unnatural? For a few hundred years, I have travelled with my nephew Jedi all over this universe. And, most of the time (99.9999…%), the vase are not sitting in the natural cases as described in his analogy. His saying is true only when my spaceship landed on Earth. There must be some unnatural force around Earth.


Apple boy: Okay, okay. No analogy. But, please read the entire article. The argument is very strong individually, especially about the Standard Model.


G-grandmother: Hi, boy, it took me awhile to read it. No big problem, but a major confusion. There are only two questions.

a. Standard Model is unnatural (meaning, it is wrong).

b. Nature is unnatural (meaning, … nuts).


Apple boy: The issue is more subtle than that. The Standard Model has three parts.

Part A — A zoo of particles (especially the 48 matter particles) which are verified by tests.

Part B — A set equations which *fits* the test data by hand-put many parameters into the equations.

Part C — A reverse-engineering which produced Higgs mechanism.

If Standard Model is wrong (unnatural), which part is wrong?


G-grandmother: Part A is message directly from Nature. Part B is artificial but works for Nature. Only part C is the suspect of the problem.


Apple boy: But, Higgs boson was *discovered* on July 4th 2012.


G-grandmother: Indeed, LHC found *something* on July 4th 2012. But, 14 months later, we haven’t even officially established evidence for the Higgs to bottom quark pair decay (which is one of the *golden channel*) at all.

Matt’s argument is all about the *mass* of that something (he calls it Higgs boson) vs the *vacuum energy* (he calls it Higgs field) of the empty space.

In one other model, the mass of that-thing should be [(1/2) of the vacuum energy + some transformation barrier], as that-thing is a blob of [a vacuum state to a new vacuum state] transformation.

This is an unsettled issue and thus no need to go into any further.


Apple boy: Okay, let’s put the Higgs issue aside. The unnaturalness can still arise in the case of *multiverse*.


G-grandmother: *Possible universes* was a very old philosophical topic. The evolution *pathways* for the universe are zillions (infinite to be exact), but the *history* of the universe is unique, only one history. That is, there is only *one set* of laws of universe.

The *multiverse* in the article is about having many different sets of laws of nature. They got this idea from the concept of *fine-tuning*. If a set of laws can be tuned, it becomes many different sets.


Apple boy: *Fine-tuning* is definitely a part of nature. If we change the nature constants very slightly, this universe will be dramatically different.


G-grandmother: Well, this is another major confusion. Nature is very, very precise, locked by Alpha (a dimensionless pure *number*). That is, no *dimension* of any kind can change it. Preciseness looks very much like fine-tuning but cannot be tuned.


Apple boy: Thanks G-grandmother. Now I understand the issue which has only two questions.

1. Which one is unnatural —- Nature or the Standard Model?

2. Can preciseness be tuned?

But,  I think that you have swept three very important points off the table by questioning about the Higgs mechanism, didn’t you?

1. Three Higgs (or other) field classes (on, off, on/small)

2. Quantum fluctuations of quantum fields, and the energy carried in those fluctuations (the vacuum energy)

3. Why It Isn’t Easy to Have the Higgs (or Higgs-like) Particle’s Mass Be Small (the summation of all different fields and the magic cancellation)


G-grandmother: I was a farm lady, you know. I know everything about *fields*, the corn field, the potato field, the sheep field, the dog field, the fish field, … the ocean field, etc..


Apple boy: Come on, G-grandmother. A herd of sheep, a pack of dogs and a school of fish, not fields.


G-grandmother: Okay, my bad. Just exclude those then. But, for all other fields (corn or the whatnot), I could turn them on or off as I please, by plowing them out or seeding them in. If you can move this Earth into Mercury’s orbit, I can even turn the ocean field off.


Apple boy: What is your point?


G-grandmother: Just a bit Buddhism here. All those fields are transient phenomena. Their on or off have no importance for the eternal reality. For me, there was only *one* field, the surface of the Earth, and it cannot be turned on or off (so to speak). And, this true field is a tad bigger than all those *fields* add together. So, those summation operations of all those different fields (top quark field, etc.) do not make any difference for the true Daddy field which cannot be turned on or off. By the way, if a field can be turned on or off, it cannot be the true Daddy field.


Apple boy: What is the true Daddy field for this universe?


G-grandmother: Now, you ask a right question. It is the space-time sheet (field). All matter particles are protrusions from the space-time field, just similar to the corns and potato on the Earth field. When an electron protrudes, it forms an electric field.


Apple Boy: So, Higgs field is not space-time field. Is there anything wrong with the Higgs field argument in this unnaturalness issue?


G-grandmother: This is the whole problem. The argument implies that the Higgs field is the true Daddy field which affects the entire universe. You know, only the true Daddy field (the space-time-sheet) carries the *vacuum energy*. Any other fields also carry energy, but not vacuum energy.


Apple Boy: Come on, everyone knows that the vacuum energy is the result of quantum fluctuations of quantum fields.


G-grandmother: No, the quantum fluctuations of electric field are not vacuum energy. This is a linguistic issue, you know. Vacuum is referring to lacking of matter in *space*. So, vacuum energy is about the energy carried by space-field (space-time-sheet to be exact). If Higgs field carries some energy, it should not be called the *vacuum energy*, unless the Higgs field is the space-time filed.


Apple Boy: Well, besides of not being turned on or off, what is the other reason that the Higgs field cannot be the space-time-sheet?


G-grandmother: The space-time –sheet houses *all* fields (including the gravity field), the same as the Earth field houses all plant fields and those herds, packs and schools, you know. If Higgs field does not house all fields, its being on or off does not truly make any difference to the space-time-sheet. If it does house all fields, then it cannot be turned on or off. All those calculations are just games on the paper.


Apple Boy: Okay, let’s put this Higgs field vs vacuum energy issue aside. The point that the vacuum energy is the result of quantum fluctuations is still important, isn’t it?


G-grandmother: Wow, you got a key question again. We know three facts.

a. Quantum principle (fluctuations) is a fact.

b. Vacuum energy is not zero.

c. The above two facts (a and b) are related.

But, what kind of relation are they, the cause/effect or the fundamental/emergent? There are two possibilities.

1. Quantum principle (fundamental) causes the nonzero vacuum energy (emergent).

2. Nonzero vacuum energy (fundamental) causes the quantum principle (emergent).


Apply Boy: Come on, everyone knows that #1 is the answer. But, what is the big deal here?


G-grandmother: This is *the* issue. By selecting #1 as the answer, we are facing the unnaturalness issue. By selecting #2 as the answer, the Nature cannot be unnatural. But, this issue is very deep and cannot be discussed any further here.


The above is also available at http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/naturalness/#comment-84640   


Nature’s master-key cuts out SUSY the undead

At Professor Matt Strassler’s blog, kashyap vasavada asked, {I am curious about -at what point researchers like you would conclude that there is no SUSY? Some unnamed people are hoping that it may be at extremely high energy ,unreachable by any realistic accelerator!}

Matt Strassler answered, {You’ve got to distinguish “there is no SUSY” (which it will be impossible to conclude in the next century or two) from “there is no SUSY at scales that are relevant for the hierarchy problem” (on which the LHC has already had, and will continue to have, enormous impact.)

Deciding when to conclude something for which there isn’t 100% proof is very difficult. It is a judgment call. I don’t think there will be a day when I say to myself: “today I’m absolutely sure there is no SUSY just out of reach of current experiments”. On the other hand, I never said, “today I’m sure there *is* SUSY just out of reach of current experiments”. This is something which at one point was somewhat plausible — and was once a bit more plausible than most other options, all of which were pretty bad — that will gradually become less and less plausible.

Generally, there’s no value to saying you know something for certain (i.e., drawing a “conclusion”) when in fact you don’t know. It’s my style to continue to keep an open mind. For what it is worth, I no longer consider supersymmetry at LHC energies more plausible than the appearance of something completely unexpected and unknown to humans.}

This is indeed a very important issue of today. Professor Matt Strassler has given a very professional answer. Yet, for an old grandmother, this issue can be viewed in a different angle.

Her granddaughter (the sleeping beauty) will wake up if she can take the elixir which is locked in a vault (protected by 10 steel doors). The legend says that only the Witch of the West has a master-key (called SUSY) for all those 10 doors. Before sending her puppy searching for it, she makes a search analysis first, as follow.

A. Her baby is in the bed called “universe” which has “four” parts.

a. visible part (VP) —- it has an “event-gate”. That is, every “event” in VP must be inside or through this gate.

b. invisible part (IP) —- outside of the visible part. Yet, any encounter (or contact) with this VP from IP must through this VP gate.

c. Contact horizon (CH) —- anything beyond CH has no “meaning” for getting the elixir.

So, the search issue is very simple. She must find out “one” answer. Where is the VP gate? By knowing that there is no “contact” at VP gate, the chance for her to get the elixir is nil. Of course, it will be nice if she know about the CH. If she knows that SUSY is beyond the CH, that SUSY has no “meaning” to her any more.

Thus, the issue is not about whether there is SUSY or not. The issue is about the VP gate (perhaps a tad about CH).  If the Witch of West comes to visit this universe less than once in the lifetime of this universe, there will be no SUSY for the grandmother.

B. One day, one of her friend comes and opens all the 10 doors. She will instantly forget that SUSY legend.

SUSY (with s-particles) has been with us over 40 years. Among the voices, only Professor Matt Strassler stands for physicist integrity  while many others have changed SUSY into either a religion or a name calling. One blog article made the following points.

In a blog post “SUSY, a scapegoat: different kinds of belief”, it listed three reasons for the greatness of SUSY.

a. The chance for LHC to discover SUSY is not more than 50% as … 100 Tev machine is needed for reaching the SUSY.

Note: This is a “catch-me-not-game”. If you stop trying to catch me, you lose. If you keep trying, I can always go one step beyond your reach.

b. Someone will defend SUSY even after his death.

Note: This becomes a great new religion, making the afterlife very meaningful.

c. With a super-SUSY equation:

anti-SUSY kibitzers = cranks  + stupidity  = anti-SUSY Mujahideens

That is, if he cannot win with reasoning, he can always win by name callings.

On August 31, 2013, Peter Woit wrote, “The big yearly SUSY conference, SUSY 2013 has been going on in Trieste this past week. From the experimentalists, the news is just stronger limits: no hint of SUSY anywhere in the LHC data. From the theorists, the reaction to this news has been pretty consistent: despite what people say, not a problem. …     However, if you look at Savas Dimopoulos’s talk the MSSM gets a grade of D-. He argues that the LHC has shown us that the answer is the Multiverse, and that split SUSY with its fine-tuning gets a grade of A. … Nima Arkani-Hamed’s talk was about SUSY in 2033, which in his vision will be pretty much the same as SUSY in 2010. Remember all those things the LHC was supposed to find but didn’t? Well, now the argument is that they’re really there, but we will need a 100 TeV collider to see them. …  and SUSY 2033 could feature all the SUSY 2010 talks retreaded, with 1 TeV gluinos moved up to 10 TeV. (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6221 ).

In addition to Matt’s points, Occam’s razor can settle this issue by reaching the “Bottom secret” of Nature by unlocking 10 locked doors with a master-key which consists of no SUSY (with s-particles).

Locked door 1. — The 48 Standard Model matter particles are now established as fact, but no theoretical base is known for their rising. This mystery is behind the first locked door.

Locked door 2. —  There are many coupling constants (such as Alpha, α), [Neff = 3] and some free parameters (such as, Cabibbo and Weinberg angles). Again, there is no theoretical base for their calculations. These mysteries are behind the second locked door.

Locked door 3. — The (dark/visible) mass ratio = 5.3526 is now a certainty. What is the theoretical base for its calculation? It is a mystery behind the third locked door.

Locked door 4. —  Quantum principle and Relativity are not compatible. How can it be made compatible? This issue includes the gravity unification. This mystery is behind the forth locked door.

Locked door 5. —  What is the theoretical base for giving rise to “charges” (e-, m- charge, etc.)?  Why is e-charge unique while m-charge diverges? This mystery is behind the fifth locked door.

Locked door 6. —  Universe is accelerating its expansion. What drives this? This is in fact the same issue of how the structures arise from a bowl of uniform soup. The mechanism which gives rise to structures will accelerate universe’s expansion. This is the mystery behind the sixth locked door.

Locked door 7. —  Neutrinos are oscillations. What powers these? This is the mystery behind the seventh locked door.

Locked door 8. —  Nature has three parts.

a. Material universe (Earth, Sun, galaxies, etc.), not including life.

b. Life

c. Numbers

Are those three parts governed by three disjoined sets of laws? Or they are governed by a unified set of laws?

Note: life has at least two distinct traits.

i. life process (reproduction and metabolism) which needs a computing device.

ii. individuality.

Are these two traits arising from the laws of physics? Or life gets them from somewhere else?

These mysteries are behind the eighth locked doors.

Locked door 9. —  What is time and space?  How do they arise? This is the same issue of how ħ (Planck constant) arose.  These are behind the ninth locked door?

Locked door 10. —  The Master-key test. Is the key for the nine doors above a Master-key or nine different keys? If it is not a Master-key, this tenth locked door cannot be opened.

With such a master key which consists of no SUSY, the SUSY (with s-particles) will simply be cut out by the Occam’s razor.  Yet, can such a master key be found? The following shows a definitely “Yes”.

Key 1. The 48 Standard Model matter particles are now established as fact, but no theoretical base is known for their rising. This mystery is behind the first locked door.

The G-strings reproduce all Standard model matter particles, see (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/g-string-final-nail-seals-higgs-coffin.html ).



Key  2. There are many coupling constants (such as Alpha, α), [Neff = 3] and some free parameters (such as, Cabibbo and Weinberg angles), and CC (Cosmology Constant), etc. Again, there is no theoretical base for their calculations. These mysteries are behind the second locked door.

For calculations of Cabibbo angle, Weinberg angle and Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, see (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html ).



Key  3. The (dark/visible) mass ratio = 5.3526 is now a certainty. What is the theoretical base for its calculation? It is a mystery behind the third locked door.

See “Dark matter, mystery no more, part 2! (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/08/dark-matter-mystery-no-more-part-2.html )”.

Key  4. Quantum principle and Relativity are not compatible. How can it be made compatible? This issue includes the gravity unification. This mystery is behind the forth locked door.

See “Quantum algebra and axiomatic physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/09/quantum-algebra-and-axiomatic-physics.html )”.





Key  5. What is the theoretical base for giving rise to “charges” (e-, m- charge, etc.)?  Why is e-charge unique while m-charge diverges? This mystery is behind the fifth locked door.

See “Axiomatic physics, the final physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html )”.

Key  6. The universe is accelerating its expansion. What drives this? This is, in fact, the same issue of how the structures arise from a bowl of uniform soup. The mechanism which gives rise to structures will accelerate universe’s expansion. This is the mystery behind the sixth locked door.

See “Acceleration of the expanding universe, mystery no more! (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/acceleration-of-expanding-universe.html )”


Key  7. Neutrinos are oscillations. What powers these? This is the mystery behind the seventh locked door.

See “Neutrino oscillation, Mystery no more (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/neutrino-oscillation-mystery-no-more.html )”.


Key  8. Nature has three parts.

a. Material universe (Earth, Sun, galaxies, etc.), not including life.

b. Life

c. Numbers

Are those three parts governed by three disjoined sets of laws? Or they are governed by a unified set of laws?

Note: life has at least two distinct traits.

i. life process (reproduction and metabolism) which needs a computing device.

ii. individuality.

Are these two traits arising from the laws of physics? Or life gets them from somewhere else?

These mysteries are behind the eighth locked doors.

See “KEY MISSION OF LIFE (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/key-mission-of-life/ )” and “IS THE MODELER THE MODEL? (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/is-the-modeler-the-model/ )”.

Key  9. What are time and space?  How do they arise? This is the same issue of how ħ (Planck constant) arose.  These are behind the ninth locked door?

See “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-time-breaking-of-perfect.html ) and Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition of dimension (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html ).

Key  10. The Master-key test. Is the key for the nine doors above a Master-key or nine different keys? If it is not a Master-key, this tenth locked door cannot be opened.

See “Litmus test for the final physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/04/litmus-test-for-final-physics.html )  and The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )”.

With this master-key, it cuts out all SUSY (with s-particles).



This article is also available at (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/08/23/final-day-of-search-2013/#comment-77563 ).

{Note added on June 14, 2015:

“Paul Steinhardt [said]: inflation is a compelling story, it’s just not clear it is right… I’d appreciate that astronomers presented results as what they are (scale invariant etc) rather than ‘inflationary’… Everyone on this panel thinks multiverse is a disaster. …

Roger Penrose [said]: inflation isn’t falsifiable, it’s falsified… BICEP did a wonderful service by bringing all the Inflation-ists out of their shell, and giving them a black eye. (see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7812 )”


These are great vindications for this paper (written 22 months ago), but it is better late than never. The truth will always prevail.}

Origins of life, Mind and Cosmos

In a blog post “A major new theory for life’s origins”, Erik Andrulis wrote, “Instead, an overarching theory for life’s emergence is clearly required, one which first of all takes properly into account the thermodynamic requirements inherent in the so-called order-creating processes, those mediating the first steps in the emergence of life in particular, and second takes appropriate advantage of the torrent of new pertinent information pouring out of both the life, and the earth sciences.”


He [Wolfgang Nitschke] sees that life is an “order-packet” floating in the ever-going-disorder torrent.    Thus, the mechanism of how to create an “ordered-packet” in such a disorder torrent is the central issue for the origin of life. His view is not wrong but is very shallow and superficial.


First, this Nature has three parts (or three sons),

a. Physical universe (Earth, Sun, galaxies, … , but excluding the “life”) —- ruled by the laws of physics.

b. Life universe —- ruled by the laws of life.

c. Numbers (Natural number, rational, irrational, real, imaginary, etc.) —- ruled by the laws of mathematics.


The first issue will be that “Are these three parts governed by three different sets of laws?” or “Are they governed by a unified set of laws?” And, there are only two answers. Yet, the Nature will only choose one from these two answers.


Then, the issue of “life origins” can be reduced to “What is life?” Life can obviously be identified with three distinct traits.

1. Life process (reproduction and metabolism)  —- this is an “information-processing” process. That is, life needs a computing device.

2. Life has consciousness —- the ability of distinguishing the “self” from the “other”. This is about the individuality. A mechanism of gaining the individuality is needed for life.

3. Life has intelligence —- it can face-off the challenges.


So, the second issue will be that how life gets those mechanisms (computing device and individuality machine). If life gets these mechanisms from the “laws of physics”, its “origin” has been answered. If it does not get these mechanisms from the laws of physics, then the search must go on. Thus, this is, in fact, a physics issue, and a discussion at a physics blog (http://blog.vixra.org/2013/07/18/naturally-unnatural/#comment-33594 ) did discuss this.


The “Life’s Origins” is much deeper than the order-creating-mechanism.


Erik Andrulis commented, “As for the three parts, sure, that works, but what about symbols, consciousness, emotion, thought, politics, knowledge? Can’t forget those. As for the three distinct traits, I know about those, but also about many, many others.”


I of course did not forget those (emotion, thought, politics, etc.). But, there is the law of “fundamental/emergent”. From a very few fundamentals, there comes many emergent. The “Intelligence-machine (the brain)” is such an emergent (see http://www.prequark.org/inte001.htm ).


The above is available at (http://erikandrulis.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/a-major-new-theory-for-lifes-origins/comment-page-1/#comment-1293 ).


Sean Carroll commented at his blog on Thomas Nagel’s book “Mind and Cosmos”, “The claim is that there is something inherently *subjective* about the experience of consciousness, something that cannot be shared with other conscious beings nor described by physics. (Even if you know every physical fact about bats, you still don’t know what it’s like to be a bat.)  … the first point, a purely physical view of the world is incomplete,  … he claims that the standard scientific picture must be augmented by a non-physical notion of teleology — directedness toward a purpose.  …  “teleology requires that successor states . . . have a significantly higher probability than is entailed by the laws of physics alone.”

So Nagel rejects “scientific naturalism” or “reductionism” or “materialism” or “physicalism,” but also rejects theism.  … we might ultimately come to believe that the best explanatory framework for the appearance of consciousness in the universe involves positing mind as a separate category.

 People who deny that physics can ever account for consciousness have a similar idea; even if we had a complete theory that accounted for every possible observable action of purportedly conscious creatures, they would not be satisfied that this qualified as “understanding” or “explanation.” For me, that’s just a misunderstanding of what kinds of explanations we can legitimately hope for.

Namely, point number two above (scientific materialism is incomplete and needs to be augmented by something apart from the physical) actually does follow, under plausible assumptions, from point number one (consciousness cannot be explained in purely physical terms). ”



This is a very old issue. The content of this post could be reduced into one question.


Can physics explain consciousness?


Obviously, this is a question without a settled answer in the mainstream academia thus far. In my view, the major problem of this simple question is neither about physics nor about philosophy but is about the linguistics.


First, *explanation* is a term of sociology, totally subjective. And, Sean Carroll has said very nicely, “People who deny that physics can ever account for consciousness have a similar idea; even if we had a complete theory that accounted for every possible observable action of purportedly conscious creatures, they would not be satisfied that this qualified as “understanding” or “explanation.” For me, that’s just a misunderstanding of what kinds of explanations we can legitimately hope for.”


Thus, we should define the two with a *fundamental /emergent* relationship instead of explanation. Carroll said again, “Except, if mind is not physical, at some point they swerved away from those laws, since remaining in accordance with them would never have created consciousness.  So, at what point does this deviation from purely physical behavior kick in, exactly? It’s the immortal soul vs. the Dirac equation problem–if you want to claim that what happens in our brain isn’t simply following the laws of physics, you have the duty to explain in exactly what way the electrons in our atoms fail to obey their equations of motion.”


Is the *football-game* a part of Nature? If we human are part of Nature, all our activities cannot go beyond the Nature. Of course, there is no *physical-action* in the game can swerve away from the laws of physics. Yet, the *rules* of the game can be completely unrelated to the laws of physics, whatever that physics laws are or will be. That is, something *in* Nature can be completely not related to the laws of physics. One example is enough for existential introduction. Again, this is another linguistics issue. The rules of football game is not *spontaneous* emergent from the laws of physics.


Second, is consciousness a spontaneous emergent of the laws of physics? Thus far, consciousness is defined as the **quality or state** of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. With this definition, we today obviously have not found any fundamental/emergent relation between it and the physics laws. If we can change this definition very slightly to “consciousness is the *ability* of distinguishing a *self* from the others” (that is, by a system of individuality), then there is a *four-color theorem* available for our use. This four-color theorem guarantees that unlimited (perhaps infinite) number of mutually distinguishable balls can be produced. Thus, every four-color system can guarantee the manifestation of a system of *individuality*. As far as we know, *life* is a four-color system, with (A, G, T, C) as genetic-colors. If a four-color system is also embedded in physics laws, then a spontaneous emergent relation between consciousness and physics laws could be established.


The above is available at (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/22/mind-and-cosmos/#comment-7295910552604268276 ). 



Einstein, the mythical vs the real

Professor Matt Strassler commented: “ …   encouraging all those young people to strive to be the *mythical* Einstein (who spent all his time thinking deep theoretical thoughts, of course), and the backlash drives young people to focus more on proposing and explaining experiments (like the *real* Einstein), that would be a good thing for science.”


I kind of understand your saying. Let me paraphrase it. If I got it wrong, please correct me.


This is very much to do with linguistics; too many terms are over used and become toxic. For example, what is “theoretical physics”?


a. A theoretical framework which is “based” on “quantum principle and relativities” is not consistent as the two in the base are not compatible. That is, there is no true theoretical system based on these two pillars of physics.


b. The Standard Model has no “theoretical base” but is a 100% hodgepodge of the test data. The equations of the model are the “best fit” mathematic formulas for the data, and many parameters in the equations are “put in” by hand, not from any theoretical base. That is, the Standard Model is just a “bookkeeping”, not a “theory” per se.


c. Being not a true theory, all “predictions” in the Standard Model have no theoretical base but is from the result of that “there is a ‘piece’ missing” or that “it must have this mass in order to balance the book”. Thus, the term “prediction” is now no longer connecting to any theoretical work. Furthermore, this kind of “bookkeeping” can be tweaked, and there comes the “post-diction” which further poisons the term “prediction”.


d. For a true theoretical framework in physics, it should be an axiom-system, with a base (definitions, axioms and procedures) and a set of consequences (sentences and theorems). As the term “prediction” is now badly contaminated, any theoretical framework will no long produces predictions but have “consequences” which are delinked from the “pre- or post-“ of any data point. When a “consequence” is verified by a data set of 100 years old, it is still a “pre-“diction for that data set.


Both M-theory and SUSY are true physics theories (theoretical frameworks). But, they are in two different “levels”. If we use the Standard Model as the “reference” point, there are two “types” of theoretical framework (not using “theory” any more as it is badly poisoned).


      i. Type I: “above” SM framework, that is, its base contains the Standard Model. Of course, its consequences should not reproduce the SM. That is, no existing “data” (not knowledge) can judge its validity. A new data is needed for this Type I framework.


     ii. Type II: “below” (beneath) SM framework, that is, its base does not contain the Standard Model. Then, its “major” mission is to “reproduce” the SM. If it succeeds, it is a valid framework. Otherwise, it is a failed trash. Thus, the “pre-“diction (consequence) of this Type II can be verified by all kind of “old” data sets.


By definition, the base of an (any) axiomatic-framework can be chosen arbitrary, that is, it is not subject to any testing. Its validity hinges on two points.


     1. As a mathematical construct — it must be mathematically consistent.


     2. As a theoretical “physics” framework — its “consequences (not the base)” must make “contacts” with the “known” physics.


If your *mythical* is about a construct which does not make any contact to the reality while *real* denotes a connection, then I now understand your saying.


The above is available at (http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/07/31/a-few-stories-worth-a-comment/#comment-72302 ).


Sean Carroll commented at his blog , “The working definition of “scientism” is “the belief that science is the right approach to use in situations where science actually isn’t the right approach at all. … Indeed, you might even misunderstand yourself. By which I mean, using vague words like this is an invitation to lazy thinking. … Given that the only productive way to use a word like “scientism” — something vaguely sinister, ill-defined, used primarily as an accusation against people who would not describe themselves that way — would be to provide an explicit and careful definition every time the word is invoked, why use it at all? … but lumping everything we don’t like into one catch-all word isn’t useful.”

You are exactly right. It is not helpful by using such a catch-all poorly defined word.

Yet, for Pinker to have a talk with the title “Science Is Not Your Enemy”, it shows that there is an issue much deeper than a single word “scientism”. Science instead of being *merely* an extremely effective method for gaining empirical knowledge of the world, it was claimed by very many as the “only” way of gaining empirical knowledge of the world, and this is the problem. There is no crackpot-philosopher or crackpot-musician, only crackpot-physicist. The problem is the definition of “science” by many physicists. If a theory is not a part of the mainstream menu, it is automatically labeled as crackpot. Then, many philosophers and artists are worse than crackpots but are idiots, and this was evident in the “Nothingness debate”. Why should those idiots not fight back?

I do see a major problem in the definition of “science”, especially on two of its terms, “prediction and theory”.

“Pre- (before)” of prediction was referring to with a “time-frame”. When a “new” data confirms the calculations of an old theory, that old theory made good “prediction”. When the calculation of a new theory fits the old data, it is a “post-“diction, and a postdiction has no scientific value.

Then, there are two types of theories.
Type A — a hodgepodge of test data, with the “best-fit” mathematic equation and with many hand-put-in parameters. This type theory does not truly make “theoretical prediction” but predicts from not “fitting” well, such as there must have a third generation of quark in order for a better fit of the known data.

Type B — an axiomatic system, with a “base” (definitions, axioms, procedures) and consequences (sentences, theorems, etc.).

As the hand-manipulated theory, the type A theory can always be tweaked to make postdiction. On the other hand, the consequences of type B theory can never make any postdiction without changing its base. Thus, the “prediction” of type B theory is not referring to a time-frame but is about its base. If its base is “below (or beneath)” the data’s theoretic-reference-frame, its consequences still “predict” that old-data.

The new meaning for “prediction” is very important. That is, the “base” of theory B is verified without itself being subject to “direct-testing”. With this, science “could” well be the right tool to use for every problem, including in the “Nothingness debate”, and even the issues of consciousness and intelligence. A not-testable “base” can be verified via its consequences.

The above is available at (http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/08/14/lets-stop-using-the-word-scientism/#comment-7295910552604267885 ).